You also have the fact that the Hunter Lake project is estimated to supply about twice the amount of water this alternative is estimated to produce, and you also have the recreational and tourism aspects that Hunter Lake would produce.

If we are going to do it, why would we spend the money to build something that may supply us with about half the water capacity? This seems shortsighted to me. I also can’t foresee a lot of recreation and tourism from some operating gravel pits and dozens of wellheads in the river bottoms that flood periodically.

Besides what they have spent to purchase the land, CWLP has expended many millions so far on the Hunter Lake project. This money will have been spent for nothing if we decide not to build it.

I get the impression that some of the proponents of the wells/gravel pits alternative think CWLP will keep the Hunter Lake land if we go with this alternative. There are many people with buy-back clauses in their sales contracts from when they sold their land for Hunter Lake. The only logical reason I can think of not to build Hunter Lake would be to sell all the land to help pay for this inferior alternative. From what I understand this is absolutely what will happen, but I think it would be a shame.

Reg Davis is a fourth generation resident of Springfield with family ties to the Hunter Lake property. He has followed and researched the lake issue for more than 20 years.